2009
DOI: 10.1007/s10661-009-0801-4
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of fecal coliform bacteria before and after wastewater treatment plant in the Izmir Bay (Eastern Aegean Sea)

Abstract: The distribution of fecal coliforms was investigated and determined in Izmir Bay from 1996 to 2005. Izmir Bay severely was polluted from industrial and domestic discharges during decades. In early 2000, a wastewater treatment plant began to treat domestic and industrial wastes. This plant treats the wastes about 80% capacity after 2001. The sampling periods cover before and after treatment plant. Assessment method for determining the number of fecal coliform has evolved membrane filtrations. Maximum surface fe… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 30 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, fecal coliform counts frequently appear to be higher than the allowed limit due to the creeks and the leakages in the coastal area of the bay where mussels are harvested (Kacar and Gungor 2010).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, fecal coliform counts frequently appear to be higher than the allowed limit due to the creeks and the leakages in the coastal area of the bay where mussels are harvested (Kacar and Gungor 2010).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition, the densities of all the determined fecal indicators, especially TC, was over 10 times higher immediately after a three-day long rainfall (24 th April) than on days of ordinary weather in May and June. Synthetically considering all data regardless of the sampling sites, the number of TC (5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24)196 MPN/100 mL) and FC (< 1-19,081 MPN/100 mL) fluctuated largely depending on the sampling date, while E. coli showed a relatively narrow range of variation (< 1-728 MPN/100 mL). During all collection time, E. coli was not detected in samples from St. 1.…”
Section: Variation Of Fecal Indicators In the Restored Areamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Fecal pollution of streams has been correlated with rainfall amount [15]. The overflow of untreated sewage is one of the most serious pollutants of concern for water quality [16,17]. The sewage collecting facility (St. 10) is located at a distance of 800 m from St. 1 and overflow from the facility might explain the fecal pollution on rainy days.…”
Section: What Is the Main Source Of Fecal Pollution In Cheonggye-cheon?mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Aquatic plants are greatly recommended because of their high efficiency in removing coliforms, with the subsequent simplifying and lowering of costs in water treatment (Kacar and Gungor, 2010) and a decrease in risks for public health, as recommended by several international organizations (Agatemor and Okolo, 2007).…”
Section: Variablesmentioning
confidence: 99%